comment #1

Reedyb says ...

Wow! You sure elevated Roger Kumble's rep with that statement.

I think we need to wait until Zach Snyder makes at least one more movie to see where he lands. If he does a great job with Watchmen, which is a graphic novel that plays from the higher brain functions, not just for cool looks. It's a deconstruction of the superhero mythos that maybe even Jeff could love (although I doubt it).

I haven't seen 300 and don't have a large desire to, but there is something to be said for striking images.

comment #2

Noah says ...

You're a condescending prick, Jeff. If this movie was directed by Michael Mann, you'd be wetting your pants and calling it the evolution of cinema. You just love to be a nay-sayer and you love to go against the grain for the sake of it. You've been wanting to rip this movie for so long now, you never would have given it a fair shake.

comment #3

Joe B. says ...

300 seems like a non-effective example of the disparity between audiences and critics. It's got a 60% (Fresh) rating on Rottentomatoes.com.

60% is not great, but certainly not as extreme an example of disparity as recent #1's Wild Hogs (18%), Norbit (9%), Night/Museum (45%) and Ghost Rider (26%).

I guess 300 is going to be the new Wells Neverending Tangent, following several others (Eddie-cough-cough-Murphy) that got beaten into the ground.

comment #4

americanrat says ...

This from the guy who's yutzing around London instead of SXSW this week. Funny. Hollywood Elsewhere - slouching towards irrelevancy one post at a time.

comment #5

Rick22 says ...

Being a contrarian prick for the sake of being a contrarian prick does not a great critic make. "300" is the least cynical and joyous celebration of popcorn movies since the original "Matrix" came out. Yes, I'm looking at you "Pirates of the Caribbean." Uh-huh, and you, "Superman Returns." George Lucas, your table is ready. It's an R-rated flick for the 15-year-old in all of us. If Zach Snyder was so fucking evil, he would've nipped and tucked this movie until it was PG-13 and ensured the broadest audience possible. Plus, it cost $65 million. Snyder was responsible with the budget and Warner Bros. let him "dream" onscreen. Kudos to them. And bully to all the cynical fleshy middle-aged critics who long to be "out of touch" and then use this position as a battle cry. This movie is as unique and original experience as "Pulp Fiction," "In the Mood for Love," the afore-mentioned "Matrix" and you know what, fuck it, "2001" and "Breathless." There I said it.

comment #6

Dixon Steele says ...

Saw 300 yesterday and found it to be quite entertaining, in a brutal way. It's very well done, for what it is, and like SIN CITY, a very faithful rendering of what the directors (Snyder, Rodriquez, etc.) love about the Miller books. I liked both films and felt they earned my money.

Then walked into PREMONITION after. The movie hooks you in at the start and makes you wonder how it's going to play out. Unfortunately, it's so damn confusing and the ending is a real fizzle. Word of mouth will be deadly on this one.

Noah, you are so right about Wells and Michael Mann. If MM had done 300, you just know Jeff would be raving about the integrity of the imagery, the muscularity of the dialogue, etc.

Most film critics are cranky, middle-aged white guys and find that, like Jeff, most are screenwriter wannabes who couldn't cut it.

Yeah, that's harsh, but if you can dish it out...

P.S. While The Sweetest Thing is truly awful, I thoroughly enjoyed both Cruel Intentions and, yes, Just Friends, a real Guilty Pleasure. So Kimble is 2 for 3 in my book. The only one that counts!

comment #7

Thrudvangar says ...

Jeff, you were so right about COM being the best film of the year, but you're so wrong about 300.

It's definately better than King Kong, Supe Returns, and Miami Vice combined.

Now I'm wondering if Dead Man's Chest was really so awful. Maybe I should watch it.

comment #8

Rob says ...

Uh, if Michael Mann had done 300, it wouldn't be the same movie.

Sorry to point out the obvious.

comment #9

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

Jeff, you *do* remember that V FOR VENDETTA -- a film which was released one year ago today, and which you adored -- was derived from a graphic novel, right?

A graphic novel penned by the same author who's behind Zack Snyder's forthcoming WATCHMEN adaptation (which was almost certainly fast-tracked after last weekend's opening), no less.

Think you're being a bit too hasty-pudding with that overgeneralization, there. I mean, Paul Greengrass would've fucking killed as WATCHMEN's director, but that brief Rohrschach-insertion in 300 has me intrigued as to what Snyder might do with it.

And didn't you rank his DAWN OF THE DEAD remake as one of your "Runner-Up Best" films of 2004?

comment #10

tholl-yung says ...

I'd like to see a cross between 300 and Blades of Glory where everyman's partner in the movie was their lover.

I can't believe horror junkies will give Dead Silence $7 million, please tell me it will lose money. "'Dead Silence' is the type of film in which a character -- such as the long-suffering Henry Walker (Michael Fairman), who knows all about Mary Shaw (Judith Roberts), the demon ventriloquist murdered by the townsfolk of Ravens Fair so many years ago -- sets out to dig a grave with a snow shovel. Or in which someone hands off an old-style phone receiver with no wire attached. Or in which a local movie theater is accessible only by rowboat, which Jamie, in a metaphor for something, propels with one oar."

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933107.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

comment #11

tholl-yung says ...

Have you seen the Blades of Glory poster with Heder upside down and groin to groin with Farrel? They look like they're fucking. I want a manly man Hollywood movie where the guys are doing each other.

comment #12

ratskiwatski says ...

I'm off to "Fido" right now - no particular hope for it but the hope that it goes a little way toward washing "300" from my head... weightless piece of gobshite, the imagery of which, despite A.O. Scott's funny line, no self-respecting '70's van owner would ever let disgrace his sled... I'm taking a bottleful of Lunesta with me in case it doesn't work - gonna do a fucking Masada right in the third row. So - wish me well with that!

Wells - view this question as a Rorshach - exactly *which* big shtup scene were you digging on?

comment #13

jeffmcm says ...

While I admired Snyder's visual and technical skills, I also loathed what this movie says about him as an artist, which is that he's a hack. Compare this movie with DAWN OF THE DEAD and you'll see that Snyder likes movies with gore and intense visuals, but the two movies are incredibly incompatible in terms of content and intentionality. DAWN is a rough satire of modern American life post-9/11. 300 is an aggressive, sub-thalamic piece of war porn that in no uncertain terms urges its audience to get off on bloodlust. It's horrible.

comment #14

DarthCorleone says ...

"There's never been a dumber, emptier and more sub-simian influence upon narrative cinema" - Wells

"This movie is as unique and original experience as "Pulp Fiction," "In the Mood for Love," the afore-mentioned "Matrix" and you know what, fuck it, "2001" and "Breathless." There I said it." - Rick22

Good lord - are sweeping generalizations and ludicrous hyperbole the only valid tool of the trade in film discussion these days? It seems a little early in the game to condemn the graphic novel and its influence on cinema, Jeff.

As for the latter remark...I guess it's not hyperbole if it's your honest opinion (although the inclusion of "fuck it" indicates you're at least on the fence), and I can understand how you would dub 300 unique and original from a visual perspective. But I'm sorry - those other movies you mention? - they actually have narrative weight and messages that are not shoddily and cursorily cobbled together from every narrative of their respective genres that have come before. 300 is an empty vessel. I could not care less about a single character.

Just one guy's opinion, of course.

comment #15

tholl-yung says ...

If they were doing each other, think how much more depth the script could have.

comment #16

Devin Faraci says ...

I would be interested in hearing from Jeff WHY the graphic novel is the worst thing to happen to movies ever. What is it about the juxtaposition of words and still images that is so horrifying in and of itself?

comment #17

tholl-yung says ...

When you word it like that, how could he have anything against it? Maybe he didn't like the comic book either. That they're ready made to be turned from storyboard into moving image may be the root problem.

comment #18

youchild says ...

In addition to V For Vendetta, A History of Violence and The Road To Perdition were adapted from graphic novels. The problem lies not with Zack Snyder (or, by extension, Robert Rodriguez with Sin City), but with the specific source material. Jeff might just not particularly like Frank Miller's work, and there, hey, I agree with him. In recent years, Miller's work has been violent and empty.

That said, it goes along with Jeff not buying into Kal Penn's character name in "The Namesake," somehow blaming the film for it, when that's a key part of the original novel. You can't adapt the novel and then change the main character's name, can you?

comment #19

Matthew Lucas says ...

"This movie is as unique and original experience as "Pulp Fiction," "In the Mood for Love," the afore-mentioned "Matrix" and you know what, fuck it, "2001" and "Breathless." There I said it."

Holy shit! Are you serious? I saw "300," thought it was an enjoyable piece of cinematic trash, but little more. It's a visual triumph, but there's nothing going on beneath the surface.

But even for those that love it, comparing it to "Pulp Fiction," "In the Mood for Love," "2001," and "Breathless," elevating Zack Snyder (a good director of fun, throwaway popcorn fluff) to the level of auteurs like Quentin Tarantino, Wong Kar Wai, Stanley Kubrick, and Jean-Luc Godard, is downright irresponsible for anyone with a remote interest in film.

comment #20

Clark Perry says ...

Other movies based on graphic novels: THE ROAD TO PERDITION, GHOST WORLD, AMERICAN SPLENDOR, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. I don't think Wells would lump these into the same category as 300, and yet they all derive from the same art form.

Wells, have you ever picked up a graphic novel and read it?

comment #21

Rick22 says ...

I never said it was as good as those movies -- but as fresh and startling in its unique-ness. I've never seen anything like it -- and no, the dreadful "Sin City" doesn't come close.

comment #22

RoyBatty says ...

Rick22 - Being a fan of forgotten expressions, thought I'd point out that you are suggesting the opposite of what you seem to want to say with "And bully to all the cynical fleshy middle-aged critics..."

"Bully" is usually used to praise something, as when Stephen Jay Gould entitled a collection of his essays as "Bully for Brontosaurus."

comment #23

DarthCorleone says ...

Rick22> O.k. Acknowledged. And I agreed it was visually fresh. The spirit of your post just seems to go a little further in its praise, particularly when you throw down the gauntlet at those other summer movies and put 300 in the same breath as those other films. You can parse what was unique about 300 all that you want, but for me the question comes down to this: is 300's stale, shallow, utterly unoriginal story serviceable enough to complement those original visuals and put it in the same breath as those other films? The answer for me is that it's not even close.

And while I wouldn't say Sin City was as visually arresting as 300, I thought that it at least had a modicum of characterization/narrative resonance. I can't say that for 300.

comment #24

Sergio says ...

I can't help but every time I hear that term "graphic novel" it just sounds to me like an adenoidal geek's term for a comic book who wants to pretend he's reading Victor Hugo.

And I agree with Jeff about 300. I hated every minute of 300 and by the way, did I mention it's very creepy RACIST too? Now let me get this straight...the Spartans are supposed to be fighting Persians, so why are so many of the characters clearly dark skinned Africans? Nothing I'm sure gets those nerds more excited than seeing a black man getting kicked down a well or chopped into pieces.

comment #25

jeffmcm says ...

Let's not forget the awkward homophobia ("those Athenian philosophers and boy-lovers", the neckrub Xerxes tries to give Gerard Butler) which is especially odd considering the ample homoeroticism on display.

comment #26

giantman says ...

Good grief, have we all forgotten that this all happened in 500BC!?? And we've made a few minor changes since then?? Or am I the only one?

And btw, the Persian Empire was the largest thing going in those days, stretched from India to Africa and used many local peoples to fight in their army. Which anyone with half a brain would see and understand. Yes, these people were all barbarians, which is kind of the whole point if anyone is paying any attention at all.

Jeepers, not all movies are made for everyone to like. So, you don't like 300? Great. No one is asking you to. It IS visually beautiful, thin, video-gameesque, popcorn entertainment, and it just so happens that a lot of people like that sorta thing sometimes.

comment #27

Gabriel says ...

"Other movies based on graphic novels: THE ROAD TO PERDITION, GHOST WORLD, AMERICAN SPLENDOR, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. I don't think Wells would lump these into the same category as 300, and yet they all derive from the same art form."

"Oldboy" also came from a graphic novel. I agree that there are probably more bad comic movies than good, but the medium hasn't been entirely unkind to cinema. I agree with Devin, though - I'd like to see Wells write a piece on why he hates them so much.

comment #28

MovieBob says ...

"I'd like to see Wells write a piece on why he hates them so much."

Read the blog. Demonstrably, he doesn't like "geeks" or "fanboys," REALLY doesn't like that they're more and more "in charge" of the tentpole scene, and seems to hold this against ANYTHING that "they" are into.

comment #29

Ron Lim says ...

I LOVED "300". I'm not a schmuck either; my fav movies of last year were Children of Men, Babel and Pan's Labyrinth.

I'm not saying 300 was art, but it was certainly a smart popcorn flick. Makes me wonder what's up with Jeff these days.

comment #30

jeffmcm says ...

The Persian Empire extended into what is not Egypt and Libya. Unless you subscribe to the view that ancient Egypt was populated by dark-skinned Africans, then no, the Empire would not have had employed anyone with such dark skin as seen in the movie.

If the movie wanted to be accurate, it would have depicted the Greeks as being swarthy and the Persians as being slightly more swarthy. Instead the Greeks are homoerotic Aryan supermodel frat boys and the Persians are Todd McFarlane monsters ruled by a faggy freak of an emperor.

comment #31

biffbolt says ...

"If the movie wanted to be accurate, it would have depicted the Greeks as being swarthy and the Persians as being slightly more swarthy. Instead the Greeks are homoerotic Aryan supermodel frat boys and the Persians are Todd McFarlane monsters ruled by a faggy freak of an emperor."

But that's missing the entire point.

The producers didn't want an "accurate" movie. They wanted an adaptation of Frank Miller's 300, warts and all. And that's what Snyder gave them (save for quibbles about the extra scenes involving the queen). Whether you like the result or not, he did precisely the job he was hired to do.